Was BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE ever meant to be an Elseworlds?

[Philip Portelli]

Over on the Back Issue Facebook group, there is some contention that Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's groundbreaking and influential Batman: The Killing Joke (1988) was originally intended to be an early Elseworlds story with no consequences in the regular DC continuity.

Despite DC putting out Batgirl Special #1 (Jl'88), actually titled "The Last Batgirl Story" and a crippled Barbara Gordon first appearing as Oracle in Suicide Squad #23 (Ja'89), some have stated that it was the book's popularity that somehow forced DC to consider it canon. 

Had the book been crafted as an Elseworlds, i.e. an Imaginary Story, why would Moore and editor Len Wein need permission from DC's higher ups to cripple Barbara Gordon, given the multitude of deaths seen in later Elseworlds titles?

Also, the removal of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl made room for the new Huntress book which started with its #1 in April 1989.

Have any of you heard that BTKJ was initially a Elseworlds?

[ClarkKent_DC]

The New 52 would have been a wonderful opportunity to excise the events of The Killing Joke from Barbara Gordon's history, but DC didn't take it.

[ClarkKent_DC]

Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas said:

I'm not a fan of situations where DC chooses to purposefully keep their continuity on what are expected to be consequential events ambiguous.  That "Three Jokers" series published in 2020 is a good example.  Apparently it was designed to be considered canon if you want to, and alternate continuity if you prefer to.

That's pretty much how I think of almost all DC comics.

I have not read Three Jokers, but every description of it I have seen makes me place it squarely in "alternate continuity" in my mind.

[Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas]

To be fair, there are advantages to being continuity-fluid.

My first issue of All-Star Squadron was #53.  A Crisis tie-in.  That happened to have Superman and Mister Mind on the cover (both characters that one could reasonably expect to find in current day stories). In a book that was set on both Earth-Two and a time period decades in the past.  And did not go out of its way to point out either until the a few pages in, when the Dummy mentioned a few historical figures of the 1940s.

It can be unsettling to wonder if you as a reader is sufficiently initiated into the high mysteries of any given book's premise and goals.

[Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas]

(Duplicate post, sorry)

[Philip Portelli]

Of course, you can't compare Doctor Light to the Joker. Then again, you can't compare any comic-book villain to the Joker!

I was going for a more "in-world" reaction if he sexually assaulted Barbara. How would have Dick Grayson responded? Or Clark Kent? Or Selina Kyle? Or Harvey Dent? (Actually these should have been explored regardless!)

Doctor Light was demonized by the female villains after Identity Crisis and the same would have happened to the Joker. And that would have tainted his toxic relationship with Harley Quinn later on.

And Batman is agonized over his decisions about the Joker: first, that he has resolved himself not to kill him and second, his opportunity to justify killing the Joker expired years ago. At this point, no crime, no atrocity that the Joker can (and has) committed can warrant deadly force on Batman's part if his past actions couldn't compel him to. 

When Batman locked up the Joker in Arkham Asylum after his first murdering spree and saw him escape again and again, killing more people only to return him to Arkham, the Dark Knight drew his line in the sands of justice and was forced to remain on that side.

[Jeff of Earth-J]

"...you can't compare any comic-book villain to the Joker!"

What about the Red Skull?

"...the Dark Knight drew his line in the sands of justice and was forced to remain on that side."

Why? Has he no free will? Can he not (due to a very specific set of circumstances) change his mind? 

[Philip Portelli]

1) Oh, we're including Marvel now! 

Seriously, I was referencing the Joke r's popularity, not evilness. He is DC's (and all of comics') best known villain.

And if any hero/villain combo deserved a fatal ending, it would be Captain America and the Red Skull!

2) Because that is his stance! If someone tried to kill the Joker, you know and I know that Batman would do everything in his power to save him! If Batman were to kill the Joker because he attacked someone he cared for and NOT the scores of people that the Joker killed previously then not only is it hypocritical but self-indulgent. 

Besides I can't see him changing his mind about taking a life. It's too infused into his personality and persona.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

"...you can't compare any comic-book villain to the Joker!"

What about the Red Skull?

"...the Dark Knight drew his line in the sands of justice and was forced to remain on that side."

Why? Has he no free will? Can he not (due to a very specific set of circumstances) change his mind? 

[Jeff of Earth-J]

"Oh, we're including Marvel now!"

You said "any comic book villain."

"I was going for a more 'in-world' reaction if he sexually assaulted Barbara."

Funny you should phrase it just that way. Yesterday I left off the word "reality" from one of my responses.

"And if he's able to get the Batman to kill him then, in his mind, he has won."

What I should have said was, "Fine, then 'in his mind' he has won The way I see it, every day the Joker draws breath he has won (as long as in reality he dies).

"Because that is his stance!"

Again, free will (not to mention common sense) gives one the right to alter his stance in light of new evidence.

"If Batman were to kill the Joker because he attacked someone he cared for and NOT the scores of people that the Joker killed previously then not only is it hypocritical but self-indulgent."

Yeah, well, Batman is hypocritical and self-indulgent.(That's kind of his thing.)

"If someone tried to kill the Joker, you know and I know that Batman would do everything in his power to save him!"

I'll agree with you there. I remember the story in which the Joker died, through no fault of Batman's own, and Batman revived him with a dip in the Ra's al Ghul's Lazarus Pit. 

Stupidest Batman story I ever read.*

*(I reserve the right to change my stance in light of new evidence.) 

[Jeff of Earth-J]

ClarkKent_DC said:

Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas said:

I'm not a fan of situations where DC chooses to purposefully keep their continuity on what are expected to be consequential events ambiguous.  That "Three Jokers" series published in 2020 is a good example.  Apparently it was designed to be considered canon if you want to, and alternate continuity if you prefer to.

That's pretty much how I think of almost all DC comics.

I have not read Three Jokers, but every description of it I have seen makes me place it squarely in "alternate continuity" in my mind.

I have now reread The Three Jokers as well as Fraser's review of it. Fraser, I don't disagree with a single thing you said, but I do like the story just a skosh more than you did. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on because everything Luis and Kelvin said about above is true, too. Everything about The Three Jokers simply screams "Neat Idea." I didn't bother trying to differentiate which was which (as I did do with Legion of Three Worlds) because they're all pretty much interchangeable AFAIAC. I don't really feel the need to belabor the plot because Fraser did such a good job in the link, but I do accept The Three Jokers as "alternate continuity." Having said that, though, I also agree with Luis that these stories we have been discussing are very "continuity fluid" and that that ultimately does a disservice to the reader.

"(I reserve the right to change my stance in light of new evidence.)"

Now that The Three Jokers has got me thinking of it, this story is even worse...

[Richard Willis]

Jeff of Earth-J said:

I remember the story in which the Joker died, through no fault of Batman's own, and Batman revived him with a dip in the Ra's al Ghul's Lazarus Pit.

Stupidest Batman story I ever read.*

*(I reserve the right to change my stance in light of new evidence.)

xxxx  That's not just stupid, it's obscene. It's obscene to use DC's ultimate fix-it tool to bring back a psychotic mass murderer instead of at least one of his innocent victims.

[Richard Willis]

Well, I'm 95% sure where my hardcover copy of The Killing Joke is. Since everything in the world is blocking access to that box, I'm sure it's comfortable where it is.

In my multiple readings I haven't seen anything to make me think that Barbara was raped. Since she was clearly naked, I studied the panels for any evidence of such, and didn't see any.

The ending was truly ambiguous. I thought it was lousy that Batman was laughing along with the Joker, considering what had happened to Barbara and her father. Was it meant to show that Batman had lost his mind? That the Joker suddenly stopped laughing ("off camera") can be interpreted more than one way.

[Fraser Sherman]

I suspect if it had gotten overwhelming acclaim, they'd have decided it was in continuity.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

ClarkKent_DC said:

Luis Olavo de Moura Dantas said:

I'm not a fan of situations where DC chooses to purposefully keep their continuity on what are expected to be consequential events ambiguous.  That "Three Jokers" series published in 2020 is a good example.  Apparently it was designed to be considered canon if you want to, and alternate continuity if you prefer to.

That's pretty much how I think of almost all DC comics.

I have not read Three Jokers, but every description of it I have seen makes me place it squarely in "alternate continuity" in my mind.

I have now reread The Three Jokers as well as Fraser's review of it. Fraser, I don't disagree with a single thing you said, but I do like the story just a skosh more than you did. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on because everything Luis and Kelvin said about above is true, too. Everything about The Three Jokers simply screams "Neat Idea." I didn't bother trying to differentiate which was which (as I did do with Legion of Three Worlds) because they're all pretty much interchangeable AFAIAC. I don't really feel the need to belabor the plot because Fraser did such a good job in the link, but I do accept The Three Jokers as "alternate continuity." Having said that, though, I also agree with Luis that these stories we have been discussing are very "continuity fluid" and that that ultimately does a disservice to the reader.

"(I reserve the right to change my stance in light of new evidence.)"

Now that The Three Jokers has got me thinking of it, this story is even worse...